Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Pedophile movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Profile

"is highly debated among professionals" sounds like there is masses of debate going on with many passionate voices on both sides (like say a debate on euthanasia or abortion) and I dont think that is true nor is there any evidence that the reference supports this. "However there are some individuals who still debate the issue" clearly is true and we must word this article in a way that doesnt imply things that may not be widely be accepted as true or that arent true; this seems to be a particular problem in this article, and I alluded to examples earlier, ie we need avoid words like generally and the greater in this article, User:SqueakBox 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Generally" and "greater" are true. Your absolute statement, on the other hand, is demonstratably false and unsourced. Jillium 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong there, neither generally nor greater are true, indeed they actually misrepresent the truth as does the idea of a raging debate amongst doctors about whether paedophilia should be legally and ethically acceptable or the idea that there are tens of thousands of academics arguing this viewpoint. Strikes me as a subtle defence of paedophile activism byu making it seem more of a large scale and genuine debate than is actually occurring, SqueakBox 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"the idea that there are tens of thousands of academics arguing this viewpoint"

Strawman. There are, however, plenty of academics arguing that viewpoint.

"neither generally nor greater are true"

..look those words up and then we'll talk, k?

"paedophilia should be legally and ethically acceptable"

I think you meant 'child sexual abuse.' Paedophilia is not an action.

Jillium 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

bad reference

[1] This links to LifeLine, which has nothing to do with Krumme 13 or the article cited. ? Jillium 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Lollip 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hall et al.

26 out of 80 of Hall et al.'s sample exhibited arousal to prepubescents that equalled or exceeded their arousal to women. That's 32.5%, not 26.25%. Jillium 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

26.25% is the given value in the cited article. The value of 32.5% is nowhere to be found. If it's based on our own calculations then it's original research

An edit

Despite a large amount of disagreement regarding this and many other pedophile activist claims, most psychologists do agree that there is a difference between an adult who desires sexual contact with a child and one who acts on that desire. (Added by Jim Burton.) This is one of the worst examples of accentuating the negative I have ever seen. Assuming for now that the statement is true, if indeed most psychiatrists agree that there is "a difference", the sentence should be worded to stress the positive, not the "despite a large amount of disagreement" part. Your sentence reminds me of the wording often used by scientists when they've been backed into a corner and grasp desperately at "99.9% of the research supports your claim, but nobody really knows for sure, so let's just call it a tie". If this kind of editing standard is representative of the anti-pedophile Wikipedia editors in general I know which side I will be on from here on out. I would revert your edit, but I think the best thing to do with this article would be to just plain lock it and maybe put it under an admin review so the edit wars can stop.

Also, I have changed the wording of the rest of the sentence to make it more clear what is being said. I had to read it three times before I understood the real meaning. Lollip 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If this kind of editing standard is representative of the anti-pedophile Wikipedia editors in general I know which side I will be on from here on out

I'm not sure if this is an example of an "anti-pedophile" editor. -Will Beback · † · 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, neither, definitely not "one of the worst examples of accentuating the negative" that I have seen in my wikipedia experience, SqueakBox 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Having spent a little time here my conclusion is this article lacks some serious criticism. We really need to try to gather some criticism of this type of activism and get a better expression of how non-mainstream this movement is. Thoughts please? SqueakBox 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very POV since there are already atleast 3 sections with criticism. Voice of Britain 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of Britain, this explains why I think this article needs an NPOV tag:

"That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is...It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

A glance at this talk page makes it clear that there's an "ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not." --P4k 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag has a function, but what is exactly that function? It is a warning label for the readers of the article, so in itself, it can be POV to add a NPOV tag. Which clearly is the case here, and it was definately not added as a last resort, which is why it was removed. If discussions here fail and he can clearly explain why 3 sections of criticism isn't enough, then perhaps its time to add a tag. Voice of Britain 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to your dispute with squeakbox, which I haven't been following; the neutrality of this article is challenged all the time. --P4k 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me how a NPOV tag will help the article. Voice of Britain 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It would let readers know that the neutrality of the article is disputed. --P4k 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which makes the article worse if the "dispute" is made on incorrect grounds (which is the case here).

I don't think the policy says anything about the tag being inappropriate if "the dispute is on incorrect grounds." Seriously, the flaws in that argument must be obvious to you, I'm not going to spend time pointing them out. --P4k 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In practice, NPOV tags are descriptive rather than prescriptive. There is clearly a neutrality dispute here, therefore the NPOV tag simply reflects that reality. Please don't remove it until the dispute has been resolved. -Will Beback · † · 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't protested yet so until he does, it should not be added. Voice of Britain 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While there are some criticisms of the movement these tend tyo be buried away in the bottom of the asrticle whereas they should be much more prominent, including in the opening. I think we should give a better idea of how non-mainstream the movement is in the openiong as well as, dare I say it, the revulsion most people feel towards paedophilia and hence the goals and activities of this activist movement. I even wonder about the title, maybe Pedophilia advocacy would be better , SqueakBox 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it really wikipedias purpose to create opinions for the readers? Preferably we wikipedia should just give the facts and let people make their own opinion. I don't think its possible for anyone who reads this article to beleive that the movement is mainstream in any way. Voice of Britain 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing we shopuld create opinions but we should assunme our readers dont know anything about this subject and therefore the fact of it being an extreme minority viewpoint despised by the vast majority is, IMO, important to add (assuming with a source but I dont think that would be difficult). What does feel difficult is to change the article in what I consider a constructive way, eg [2], and the fact that others disagree with the way I would like to see the article go and vice versa indicates the tag is a good idea, SqueakBox 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we add that an extreme minority like *insert artist, poet or similar* in their articles? If so, then I have nothing against you doing the same thing here. Provided you can add proper sources ofcourse. However, if it is only done in this article, then it surely is biased and should not be done. Voice of Britain 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No its not the same at all. You could argue similarly say with the Al-Qaeda though the evidenc is that Al-Qaeda is somewhat mainstream in certain parts of the world (parts of Pakistan etc) but the fact that Lincoln Thompson is a minority artist isnt a similar case as both Al Qaeda and Peadophile activism tend to bring up strong feelings in most people wheras Lincoln Thompson tends to generate no reaction whatsoever in most people, SqueakBox 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add any moral condemnation is an Al-Qeada article either. You should question your self why you feel the urge to add negative stereotyping in an article about pedophilia activism. Negative sterotyping have been scientifically studied and do have a negative biasing effect, so I don't really see any good reason to add such in an controversial article. Please tell me why we need it. Voice of Britain 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To couterbalance the positive stereotyping, and because it is a reality, SqueakBox 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is non as far as I am aware. If you can add source for your claim, it will help your cause. Voice of Britain 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You revert top Jim's version is indicative of the seriousness of the POV problem we have, SqueakBox 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The claims made are correct, I even have some sources to prove it if need be. I was hoping that it would not go into a conflict, but if it does, the outcome is already clear. Voice of Britain 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can start by sourcing the claim that sex between children and adults is legal somewhere, SqueakBox 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My own feeling is that Jim and yourself are promoting a pro-paedophile activism agenda in this article and I certainly dispute that it is okay to do that given our NPOV policy, SqueakBox 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on definition of child, lower age limits are 12 which falls under 'child' by almost any definition. Its clear that you do not have the competence to make such a judgement. We may appear biased because we do follow the research and facts rather than popular myths. And you appear biased in our eyes since you follow popular myths rather than facts and research. Voice of Britain 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent)Calling me incompetent is not an argument. Please focus on the article and not on individual editors, SqueakBox 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True, its not an argument, its a fact. I was focusing on the articles before I had to deal with certain individual editors. Voice of Britain 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually as we all edit behind computers in different parts of the worlds you are clearly not in a position to call me or any other good faith editor incompetent or any other critical opinion you might have so please refrain from doing so, all you are doing by focussing on editors is poisoning the atmosphere and ultimately such behaviour, when persistent, is not tolerated on wikipedia. So lets just stay with the article from now on. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear, here. You think that we have an agenda. We think that you can't leave your POV at the door. These are both personal comments, and both worthwhile, considering that we are all trying to shine light upon the general tone of each others' edits, and why we should maybe give up editing these highly emotional articles. --Jim Burton 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive feedback to other editors will always have a use, SqueakBox 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Voice, an edit summary that says "SquekBox should be banned for purposely vandalizing articles" is distinctly unhelpful. Please Assume good faith and chill out a bit. I am not vandalsing the article, obviously, and it is important to distinguish between vandalism (which is always in bad faith) and edits that you dont agree with. see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" SqueakBox 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, please dont use anti-vandalsim technology to undo edits that arent vandalsim as it can (and for me is) taken as a personal attack (and not just here), SqueakBox 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The technique I used was an undo. This was simply because the better version was the previous one. I also justified the undo. --Jim Burton 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith in that you will stop editing these articles and move on to areas where you have your expertise. Voice of Britain 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop demanding "expertise". You have not asserted any expertise either so we're all in the same boat. -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read a few hundred scientific studies in this area, it may not be a fancy degree but its a good start. I can source any claim I make, the problem arises when someone can't, but still persevere in that his version is correct. Let's try to avoid that in the future. Voice of Britain 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine assertion. However we can't verify it so we'll just have to leave it. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No you have to assume good faith unconditionally, SqueakBox 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should assume that I do, shouldn't you? Voice of Britain 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe vob believes that you were deliberately attempting to force your pov on wiki, since your edits were so clearly pov. Such a thing could be described as 'damaging', therefore vandalism. I would personally stop short of suggesting that your unobjectivity is deliberate. My opinion is that at least regarding this subject, you don't know what objectivity is --Jim Burton 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To which of us are you referring, Jim? IMO this article is what isnt objective or even approaching objectivity. Voice, I have been assuming good faith even when you wrongly accused me of vandalism. My edits have certainly been damaging to neither article or project, removing unsourced material and changing statements which are weighted towards an acceptance of paedophilia is neither damaging nor vandalism but your responses are indicative that we have a real POV problem here. At some point I think we will have to bring the larger community in, either through an rfc or an afd. I have to say I favour the latter as the subject lacks notability and should ideally be treated at Pedophilia, SqueakBox 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Things are comming along quite well in this article so lets all be happy and try to stay on that road. Let's just make sure that you source your claims, and if you lack sources from us, just ask and you will get one. Voice of Britain 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to your behaviour. Just to clarify, I believe that you are not a vandal, but just a terrible artist. Having read up, I can see that vob believes the same.

Afd? You obviously have no idea about the historical and present relevance and prevalence of PA, both on and off-line and how it is a different thing to pedophilia (and vice versa). Also, you seem unable to notice that wikipedia has virtually unending storage, and thus can contain material even if it has relevance to only a small proportion of people. Personally, looking at some of the nonsense articles that are openly tolerated here, wanting to delete this article can only be yet another leakage of your pov. --Jim Burton 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I know I am a terrible artist but I dont know how either of you know that as you have never seen my art work. I think the less paedophilia is paedophile activism the less notable the latter becomes as a subject though I am having a hard time distinguishing the two other than that there are probably paedophiles who dont want to be paedophiles and can see why it would be morally wronmg to legalise adult/child sexual relations. There is plenty of nonsense at wikipedia and server space is cheap but we have afd's to remove undesirable articles. I am open to other suggestions but do feel we need greater community input in this article, SqueakBox 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"I am having a hard time distinguishing the two" <- one example of your incompetence on this subject and a good reason you shouldn't edit this article. Jillium 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There clearly are no good reasons why I shouldnt edit the article and I have failed to demonstrate incompetency here, including in the above comment. Though the more pro paedophile activist supporters try to persuade me through rudeness and whatever to leave this article to them the less likely it is that that is what will happen. This article is clearly in need of more people who arent pro paedophile activism to edit or contribute and not less, SqueakBox 00:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV text

In the 1970s, the movement made temporary progress towards its goals in continental Western Europe, particularly in the Netherlands.^[1]" The ref doesnt support the text and certainly gives no evidence that paedophilia was becoming acceptable in Western Europe in the 70's as it clearly wasnt, SqueakBox 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Paedophilia was illegal throughout the 20th Century, however in the UK the depiction of naked children was more accepted in the 1960's & '70's. I would refer you to the album Blind Faith, featuring a naked pre-teen on the cover. I also remember the controversy stirred by a London Underground (a railway authority, rather than a cultural movement) poster depicting a pair of young female twins dressed only in feather boa's and boots. Note that the poster, for some fashion outlet, was displayed before objections were received, so there was some tolerance to get it that far. Punk culture both exploited and reviled the use of naked nubiles as a marketing device. From the 1980's onwards, and the spread of VCR's and the ease by which questionable material could be distributed, it was deemed a lot less acceptable to show pictures of naked pre and early teens to avoid accusations of child pornography.

I can't give you any cites, since all of the above is opinion based on memory, but there was a time in the UK when it was possible to find images that would not be permitted today. I would suggest that the period was around 1968 to 1978. LessHeard vanU 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So is the use of naked children in advertising a measure of the success of the pedophile activist movement? Is that one of the movement's goals? -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an indication that there was a more relaxed attitude toward pre-teen nudity at a certain time in the UK. In such circumstances paedophiles may have felt that there was more likelihood of bringing up the debate. The British Paedophile Information Exchange was active around this time, so there is the appearance that there was a more tolerant attitude toward its aims. As I said, the instances are from memory and are only an opinion regarding the change of attitude toward paedophile advocacy. I am noting that the current attitude toward paedophilia is not historically consistent, so people assume that they were in discussing this matter. LessHeard vanU 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

POV order

I shifted the order of the text to give more prominence to those opposed to paedophile activism, which is the great majority of human beings in the world, SqueakBox 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad populum. We are trying to objectively describe a phenomenon, not represent the views of those outside of that phenomenon. We will only document dissenting views to the extent that they relate to the movement's activities. --Jim Burton 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in opening

A good criticism section in the opening will go a long way to satisfy POV concerns so please dont just revert the valid and referenced criticism I have put as the new second paragraph and linking to child sex abuse in that paragraph; if you have concerns bring them to the talk page first. it is vital we address the NPOV concerns, SqueakBox 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded and read the source and it does not claim what the text claims. The comparison between the unsourced statements in the text and the study is not supported and it original research on just plain false. Thus the text has been removed until proper sources and claims have been made. Well, the only one who is making the POV acusations are yourself so perhaps the error is more in judgement rather than the article itself. Voice of Britain 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, I didnt write it, I moved it. Did you not notice it before when it was buried much further down in the text. Why do you think having criticism of this activism in the opening is POV givent hat POV is to include all points of view. If you dont like the current criticism section you could change it but to delete it seems to be contrary to POV to me, SqueakBox 05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

is article, should be merged into this article which isnt too long. Not surely why they were ever split up, SqueakBox 05:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

- - Does this line need correction? -Will Beback · † · 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it has very little relevance to the movement itself, is already covered in other sections and ruins the fluency, therefore I had to take it out. Here is the text:

Members of the movement claim that they do not support child abuse or illegal activity; public reaction to this claim has been skeptical. This skepticism has been reinforced by publicized incidents linking people associated with the movement against age-of-consent laws to child sexual abuse, and by the alleged similarity of this movement's views to the views used by some child molesters to justify their abuse.^[2]

Please merge it back in from where it came, if you so wish. But as far as intros go, 'reaffirmative' criticism is bulky and irrelevant to the extent of being POV --Jim Burton 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Which indicates to me you wont allow for an NPOV article. I am increasingly unsure we should have an article here if certain editors with strong pro-activist views kee[p reverting anything that makes out P activism isnt the best thing since sliced bread. You are making no attempts to resolve the POV issue and every attempt to whitewash if not glorify this whole subject. if this continues I see no alternative but an afd, SqueakBox 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please respect and uphold the longstanding edit before enforcing changes. I am open to discussion regarding where to merge this text back in, but it clearly scars the aricle in its current form. --Jim Burton 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

de Young, again

Please, please, please do not remove sections listed under the strategic analysis by de Young. As well as misinterpreting her research, you are voiding whole sections of the article, before they can be looked at by others. If you really need to back her observations up, do the decent thing and request references.

In other news, we really need an original copy of de Young's research (which is unfortunately unavailable). I can't begin to imagine how distorted 'her' observations have become, due to editors who fail to observe that she compiled this list. Does anyone have access to the article? Voice of Britain? --Jim Burton 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to order it so it will take 1-2 weeks, but I am as curious as you about this section so I will get the article. Voice of Britain 10:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I split the de Young section between strategies that are specifically mentioned by her, and those which the article indicates as not being. To include the latter would be to give them spurious authority (especially the third, which I comment on later). LessHeard vanU 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger with History of pro-pedophile activism: Discuss

Discussion now complete. There was a near-consensus (5:2+1weak) not to merge. Jim♥Burton 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please have a discussion / request a discussion over the merging of these articles? You are no administrator. --Jim Burton 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You dont need to be an admin to merge. I am an experienced user. Why do you persist in removing criticisms of PA? SqueakBox 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the history article. The discussion will take place here. A discussion is required for such a significant change, and maybe a vote. --Jim Burton 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I already gave time for a discussion and nobopdy objected. Its much better to ahve one articler for the afd that you seem set on seeing happen (judging by your edits), SqueakBox 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive and uncivil edits. This has to be discussed, and you have to show your will to discuss, as well as your will to merge. And BTW, your insistence that one article is better for afd hinges on your opinion that an afd is needed for either article. Please cool down and wait for the dissenters and supporters to turn up. No comments means no support as well as no opposition. --Jim Burton 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I support a merger. This article already contains some history and the history article contains some discssion of the activism. Merging would do away with that duplication. Further, while this is a barely-noteworthy topic they history is even less notable as an independent topic. It is more appropriate as a section of this article. If we nominated the history article for an AfD I suspect it would be deleted outright, so this is a good compromise. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose, for the reasons mentioned, and also because all concerned material seems to be not only relevant, but very important documentary evidence of fringe GLBT history and social ostracism. Since all material is well researched and relevant, it cannot fit within one article. --Jim Burton 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. They are 2 short articles on the same subject and clearly can fit into one article. Nobody is suggesting removing non-duplicated material and this will help our readers. At the moment the history article isnt even linked to the PA article so i would have thought it would benefit both camps, SqueakBox 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, we've got a discussion underway. Good. Please be warned that unless we wait a while to achieve some kind of consensus, and eventually get admin to endorse the merger (if it is required), the edit will be very flimsy, and will probably result in a war. I for one will not accept the rash behaviour that you have been engaging in, and will revert even less kneejerk edits. --Jim Burton 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While the article is title "History of..." it actually contains basic descriptions of activist groups that are missing from this article and which should be contained here. This article has almost nothing on the activists or activist groups. It's mostly the theoretical material. This is only half an article and the other material should be brought over to make this a comprehensive treatment of the topic. -Will Beback · † · 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but some material needs to go the other way. The defining question will be whether supporters can find any irrelevant material, or at least enough to merge the articles. --Jim Burton 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you. What does "irrelevant material" have to do with a merger? The reasons to merge include the desire to have one complete article rather than two partial articles, the desire to reduce duplication, and the lack of stand-alone notability of a topic. -Will Beback · † · 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt have put it better myself. I would oppose the deleting of non duplicated material during a merge; afterwards perhaps but merging isnt a way to delete material on the sly. I would also poi tout that admin endorsement isnt a necessary pre-requisite to a merge though Will is an admin anyway. I am not sure what you mean by some material should go the other way. it sounds like you are proposing changes as large buit more complicated than what I am proposing. Threatening edit wars and talking about knee-jerk reactions (ie an unconscious response) is not helpful, SqueakBox 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets get this straight: Nowhere do i say that admin endorsement is required by mandate. However, a lengthly and civil discussion, followed by an admin - endorsed edit is probably required to avoid further conflict - to make the edit 'stick'. I will happily accept and work with a merger that follows this process. And in no place do I 'threaten' an edit war. I merely mention that doing what you have been doing on a consistent basis will marr the posibility of a long term change, and make a lot of people angry. --Jim Burton 19:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid huge articles. I am also of the opinion that both subjects merit their own articles. I and others have the capability to make these articles interact in a positive and unduplicated way, if required. --Jim Burton 19:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak support to merge. Length is the only real reason to oppose a merge. PA is 45KB and HPA is 20KB. The combined article is in the "grey area" of maybe too big maybe not to big. Content-wise a copy-and-paste followed by removal of duplicate information seems pretty straightforward. If you can think of a content reason to not merge, please point it out. If you can think of a size reason, convince me that 65KB is too big for one article. Dfpc 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you merge, please do a complete copy-and-paste, add a level to all the sections and subsections, and save. Please put "initial merge from History of Pedophile Activism, clean-up to follow" or something like that in the edit summary. After you save it, then go back and do the cleanup. That way, we have a carbon copy of what was on HPA. I added a short section called "History" with a referral to the main article. Feel free to relocate this section to somewhere else in the article if you think it is in the wrong place. Dfpc 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even a dial-up connection should download that in about 10 seconds, SqueakBox 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also one of human preferences for articles of a certain size. Dfpc 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I would normally not oppose such a merge, but this area has proved to be very difficult to maintain and larger articles simply amplify this problem, making it much harder to overvue and maintain a high quality level. If the articles are maintained in smaller formats it will be easier to avoid conflicts and to make sure the quality is of a good standard. Voice of Britain 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Just look at fr:Histoire de l'activisme pédophile (58 KB) to convince you that History of pedophile activism can have is own article. Glotz 13:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Glotz. -Jillium 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment There currently appears to be no consensus and as such, the merger should not happen until there is a consensus or near-consensus in favor. I recommend dropping this for now and trying again in, say, 6 months. To the person who did the merge: Your intentions were good. To the person who reverted: Thank you. A bigger thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. Dfpc 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the member re-merged the articles whilst the consensus was Y 3 - 2.5 N, which has since moved on to Y 4 - 2.5 N. Unless that balance is reversed, merging is unthinkable. If this all dies, the articles must stay apart for now. --Jim Burton 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I Oppose......and since most people here oppose the move as well I will remove that notice. Zachorious 08:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

5 Days have passed. We have a 2:1 consensus to keep both separate. I will acknowledge this in the tag. --Jim Burton 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

5 days isnt much, SqueakBox 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you can't modify the merge tag. Well, give it a couple more days --Jim Burton 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lifting out dubious section

Members of the movement claim that they do not support child abuse or illegal activity; public reaction to this claim has been skeptical. This skepticism has been reinforced by publicized incidents linking people associated with the movement against age-of-consent laws to child sexual abuse, and by the alleged similarity of this movement's views to the views used by some child molesters to justify their abuse.^[2]

This section has many problems since the source does not support any of the statements in it. The link between the movement is made by editors of wikipedia and not by the researcher and is original research and should be removed. Unless someone fixes these problems, the text should not be included in the article. Voice of Britain 10:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please flag anything dubious as {{dubious}} so people who don't read the talk page will see it. If there's no citation, use {{fact|date=May 2007}} instead or use both. There are other in-line, section, and article templates that may be more appropriate. Dfpc 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a list of people involved in pedophile activism who've been convicted on child molestation or child pornography charge. We can certainly link to pedophile activist groups claiming they do not support those activities. And I'd guess we might even be able to find a source for expressons of skepticism. I'm not sure why that reference is there. Perhaps it was supporting some assertion that's been removed. -Will Beback · † · 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put back a version from last year which is much better, IMO. Since then the material was re-written several times so that the source was no longer as relevant. It makes more sense now. -Will Beback · † · 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You added much old and very wrong information aswell, so i reverted. Please fix the problem without adding new ones which we already delt with. Voice of Britain 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? The edit addressed your complaint above. The sources aren't any older than in the rest of the article. Why did you remove sourced material? -Will Beback · † · 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You added several chunks of text, some which are very factually incorrect which is why there where removed in the first place. If you leave those out then things will be much better. Voice of Britain 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are factually incorrect? -Will Beback · † · 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The ones we removed earlier. Voice of Britain 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't be specific I'll re-add the material. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of what you readded is already in the article opening... Jillium 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening should just be a summary of the article. If material in the intro is not in the article proper then it should be added. -Will Beback · † · 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's appropriate to briefly mention some point in the intro and expound on it later, but there's no reason to have two exact copies of a paragraph. Shouldn't we assume people have already read the introduction if they're reading the Controversy section? Jillium 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So let's restore the detailed version where it was and make the text in the intro shorter. -Will Beback · † · 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe:

The movement has encountered intense opposition, especially since the late 1970s. Most countries now enforce laws against adult-child sexual activity and child pornography.

? Jillium 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I've made the change. -Will Beback · † · 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear SqueakBox, this section explains exactly why the portion that I deleted needs to be removed from the article. Please look at the site that is linked, and you'll see that the statements in question are founded solely on original research. There is no other proof offered for such observations.

What does everyone else think? I know this has already been discussed, but there doesn't seem to be consensus on whether this section should remain in the article or be removed. Homologeo 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV section with an "advocacy" biased last sentence.

I placed a citation required tag on the following paragraph (in the de Young/'Other significant views and Strategy' section);

Pedophile activism is similar or identical to feminism, the gay rights movement, or to racial tolerance. Often by adopting anthropological theories such as by Marija Gimbutas, Mircea Eliade, Michel Foucault and others, some activists argue that pedophile activism, feminism, gay activism, and anti-racism would all be opposed to a chaste and racist male warrior role model present in all Indo-European cultures (the Kurgan hypothesis). The tolerance increasingly granted upon females and homosexuals since the Enlightenment is in fact but a repressive one in that only individuals of these groups would be tolerated that show distinctive attributes acceptable to the dominant culture.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}
I believe that the last sentence is entirely POV, promotes advocacy, and should be removed. In fact I will do so as soon as I finish this. If it is a quote then the source needs citing, as does the entire paragraph, and re-introduced making it clear that it is indeed a quote. The rest of the paragraph needs to be properly referenced, and removed if no cite is forthcoming, as not abiding by NPOV as well as unreferenced, but not with the urgency of the last sentence. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No source = feel free to remove. Voice of Britain 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By referencing the wikilinked studies there does appear to be a legitimacy to the assertion, whatever someone may think of it. If there is a verifiable source then the cite template is appropriate. If not then it can be removed as OR. In matters like this everything needs to be done by the book to avoid accusations of POV pushing. The last sentence was a different thing entirely, so I did remove it. LessHeard vanU 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was clearly describing the position advocated by those people. --Jim Burton 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to be cited. If it is not cited then it is OR and should be removed, per Wikipedia policy. LessHeard vanU 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading the re-write, and the referenced source, it appears that you have addressed the question of citing the debate regarding man-boy love within the gay liberation context. I would prefer some evidence that there is actual activism regarding the issue, but the section is now valid and referenced. LessHeard vanU 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Pedophile is spell;ed paedophile in the UK [3] so please dont remove the alternative speling from the opening as we are an international encylopedia, SqueakBox 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The spelling needs to be consistent throughout the article. Much of the cites, references and named groups/individuals are of American origin. On that basis I would be happy to use the American spelling for the article (plus I am biased because I believe that Brits are more able to work to US cultures preferences than the other way round). Perhaps an note on the first line to indicate the UK alternative and then let the Yanks mis-spell it for the rest of the piece? LessHeard vanU 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We should use US spelling but it is standard to offer other major alternatives in bold in the opening, eg Color, Humour etc, SqueakBox 19:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'Kay. I have noted the spelling as UK in the sentence. LessHeard vanU 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

External sites should be added to, not trimmed, for balance

As of 01:57, 7 May 2007 Dfpc the external sites list was long but unbalanced. Squeakbox trimmed the list on 02:17, 7 May 2007 citing NPOV.

I think NPOV is better achieved by expanding the list, not trimming it
The article is "Pedophile Activism" not "anti-pedophile activism," it is understandable that external links will show sites that are either pedophile activist sites or which discuss pedophile activist sites.
If you must trim for length, let's discuss which ones are the best examples and trim those that don't make the cut. In the meantime, restore the whole list.
Unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to in the next day or so, I will restore the deleted items. In the meantime, add more to contrarian articles to achieve NPOV. If the list becomes unwieldy, we can trim later. Be thinking about what links you want to keep and which ones you are willing to discard in the name of space. Dfpc 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

- I'll leave you to do the additions, and once done will respect your re-inclusion of the deleted advocacy sites, SqueakBox 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Documenting PA sites on an article that describes PA is not POV! Still, I added some antipedo sites to capture the feel of online activism right now. The sites in the list now (reverted) do the job perfectly, have been there for a long while and have only been blanked by The Squeek Box and one other user. --Jim Burton 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is pedophilia activism not pro-pedophilia activism, SqueakBox 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed IPCE because it hosts complete copies of copyrighted material. WP:EL says: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked.". -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to provide external links to groups for whom we already have an article. NAMBLA, etc, are already linked to from their respective articles. -Will Beback · † · 23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst most IPCE articles do not specify whether material has been copyrighted / permission gained, nor do articles from other sites such as the leadership council. Shouldn't it just be satisfactory to assume that since this is scientific research, often in support of the aims of the said websites, any violations are extremely unlikely to lead to negative consequences for those sites, let alone WP? --Jim Burton 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are U.S. laws that are written such that linking to a site that has many copyvios is equivalent to encouraging coyright vioaltions, which is why we have that guideline. Considering the cost of scientific journals I don't think we can assume they are treated as public domain. However if you'd like to contact the Wikipedia Foundation to arrange for indemnifying them for potential legal liablility then perhaps thety'd be willing to grnt a waiver. -Will Beback · † · 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely do not want to be sued for work on this article and therefore we should be extremely careful as a group of editors to do nothing that breaks any laws, SqueakBox 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing goes on all the time at WP. Why should IPCE be the exception? --Jim Burton 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are the activists and organizations?

Aside from a few references in the intro and the "activities" section, and some links at the end of the article, we don't ever clearly say who the leading activists and organizations are. I suggest we start a section that lists these. -Will Beback · † · 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive sources

Negative sources

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research321.html

If we were to list anyone who fully agrees with any position of the movement as an 'advocate', we would be including Matthew Waites, Michael Foucault, ASFAR, UK Communist Party etc. --Jim Burton 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What the article should contain

There are not merely pro paedophile activists there are also anti paedophile activists[4]. We should be giving both groups equal prominence in this article, something we certainly havent bveing doing. And yet pro paedophile activists are not more notable than anti paedophile activists and thus NPOV demands we give them equal space as we are doing now in the External links. It'll mean quite a rewrite but I am happy to work on it and make for a much more balanced article, SqueakBox 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about activists who are paedophiles, as it has been since it was created under the title "childlove movement." Also, activism against child sexual abuse is not activism against paedophilia. -Jillium 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jillium beat me to it. The page scope here is not "controversy surrounding pedophilia" but rather "activism by the pedophile community". --tjstrf talk 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it needs a change and as it is called paedophile activism and as anti paedophile activists are also paedophile activists I think you should accept the changes and at the least wait for other input before removing relevant and reff'd material. You are making it what you want to see tjstrf not what it is, SqueakBox 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-paedophile activists are not called paedophile activists. Anti-child sexual abuse activists are only relevant if they oppose paedophile activism. -Jillium 23:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-pedophile activists oppose the things that pedophile activists support. Most Wikipedia articles on movements, ideas, organizations, politicians, etc, include sections on those who criticize or oppose them. To give a proper pictrure of the controversy over pedophile activism it's necessary to include both the "pro" and "anti" sides. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the inclusion of people or organizations which actually have views contrary to paedophile activists. The person SqueakBox is trying to add is an activist against child sex trafficking. I don't believe any paedophile activists support child sex trafficking. -Jillium 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should focus on anti-paedophile activists not people that are 100% anti child sex abuse activists and would argue our friend in Cancun (not so far from where I live culturally or physically) is the former as not all paedophiles who go to Cancun actualy abuse children and certainly not at that moment of arrival. I agree with Will and want to asure everyone this issue wont go away, SqueakBox 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. One is that "Pedophile activism" implies that it concerns any activism by pedophiles, not just pedophilia-related activism. Another issue is that implies a focus on only part of the debate, whereas there is activism on both sides. Lastly, it implies a very narrow scope which belies the breadth of the topic. Since there's no law against pedophilia (the desire to have sex with children) there's little for them to advocate within the most narrow scope. In fact the actual advocacy is mostly legalize sex with children or teenagers ("EphebophilE activism?"), an activity that is usually characterized as "child sexual abuse". Even so, it would be perhaps too POV to title this article "Child sexual abuse advocacy". I think that the most accurate and neutral name for an article on this topic would be "Pedophilia-related activism". It is descriptive, neutral, and it encompasses closely-related issues like ephebophilia, sexual contact, and the opposition. Any objections to moving the article? -Will Beback · † · 07:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to that, the current title was the closest in meaning we could find to the original one, Childlove movement, that didn't attract constant talkpage raving by people who thought we were being horribly POV by daring to call the groups by their self-identifier. I'm inclined to agree with them that "childlove movement" is rather POV, but if the current title is causing a confusion regarding the scope then it could be moved back to that. --tjstrf talk 07:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the same article as it was back then so a change back to that title wouldn't be appropriate. Do we mean to say that all of these activists are pedophiles? -Will Beback · † · 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor-Attracted Activism encompasses ephebophilia --Jim Burton 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pedophilia-related" is too subjective. -Jillium 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that the present title assumes that all activists in this field are pedophiles? -Will Beback · † · 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. -Jillium 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "Child sex apologetics"? It seems to me that we're talking about two possible things here:

Advocating for pedophiles to be treated humanely - pointing out that it's a disease and not their fault, and that they can be functioning members of society, etc., advocating for more knowledge and understanding and sympathy, that sort of thing. Organizations and individuals engaged in this sort of thing, if there are any, would be what I would expect to find under "Pedophile activism".
Advocating for breaking down barriers against sex with children. This has some, but little, do with #1. Most pedophiles are (I assume) moral persons and thus do not think that adults should have sex with children, notwithstanding they they personally would enjoy it. People who advocate for breaking down barriers against sex with children are not, to my mind, any kind of friend to the pedophile, and furthermore includes a lot people (like Foucault) who don't really know or care a rat's ass about real pedoephiles - a rag-bag of infra-Ayn Randians, denizens of la-la land, attention seekers, the congenitally contrariarn, sophists, the just plain sophmoric, and so forth.

Let's look at an anolgy and see if that makes sense. Lets say, depression. The analogy's not perfect but close enough to be helpful, maybe. There are (basically) a couple ways to advocate for people who suffer from depression:

Advocate for greater understanding, teaching that its a disease and not a character flaw, advocating for increased insurance coverage for mental health, etc.
Or, on the other hand, you could advocate for (let's say) easier access to suicide devices. Again, I'll bet there are a few individuals of shallow mind who have followed their lame logic out of the kiddie pool and right off the deep end and are all like Hey yeah why shouldn't a person have the right to commit suicide, etc.

I wouldn't call these latter "depression activists" at all. I think "suicide apologists" or perhaps, if the term apologist seems too obscure, maybe "suicide advocates". The analogy holds well enough for this article.

The thing is, there isn't really an absolute and ideal name for the article. "Child sex apologetics" (or "Child sex advocacy") implies we are talking about child-child sex (or maybe child solo sex or something). Adult-child sex apologetics (or "advocacy"), though a bit awkward, might be the best compromise. "Child sexual abuse apologetics" (or "advocacy") seems pretty accurate also. Herostratus 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering what exactly Ayn Rand has to do with this... At any rate, perhaps people should take a glance at the #Double Standard? (Continuation of name discussion) section above, which went over the name issue and may be informative here. Some of the "de-stigmatization" options might be useful, since they would encompass both of the groups you mentioned above. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Apologetics" is a possible article name, I think it does a good job of capturing the nature of the activism. -Will Beback · † · 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why merge the external link list?

Due to the diversity of opinion on this topic, we should stream the list (as per yesterday) to make it more useful. I also object to shifting anti - pedophile links to the top to 'remove POV'. Let me stress: trying to reflect the ad populum consensus is not unbiased. Ideally, we should not be reflecting any consensus, but covering the topic with sources relevant to that topic, not the thoughts of disgust that we expect to be evoked in our readers. Streaming material is objective and will deflect accusations of bias.

I will also add that various readers may very well want to know what kind of site they are going to visit. This is currently not clear from our list. --Jim Burton 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain this issue maore clearly, or provide a diff? I don't follow you. I do notice that some of the descriptions of the websites appear to be POV. I suggest we just name them and say "pro" or "anti". We don't need to describe their mission. -Will Beback · † · 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think our readers can figure out what is what for themselves. This was a satisfactory solution for the same problem at Cannabis (drug), SqueakBox 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

History

The 2nd paragraph was pure history and so I have put it in the opening of the history article which people appear to want to keep, SqueakBox 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti Pedophile Activism - Now at AfD

I have constructed a new article that I intend to be added to and used to move the bulky and unnecessary criticism sections from this article. Criticism should remain, but only as far as it is relevant to the movement itself, i.e. a slither as in Gay rights movement. --Jim Burton 00:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose that split. It's what we call a WP:POV fork. The material is all one topic. Please wait until you have a consensus for that change. -Will Beback · † · 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I'm waiting for consensus. What we should have are two articles that are 80% for describing the respective movements, and 20% for summarising the criticisms. I can't see what exactly you see as wrong with this, since both topics relate to noticeable activist elements. --Jim Burton 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Will, that link you gave me specifically mentions that new articles who's subject is a POV are not POV forks. I wish to encourage everyone to participate in this project and create two roughly equal sized articles - preferably 35 - 40kb. --Jim Burton 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all notable viewpoints on a topic. So we need to include the critical views on pedophile activism in this article, not in another. (Very rarely there are "criticism of..." articles on topics that have so much criticism that including it all in the main article would cause unbalance. There isn't anywhere near that amount of criticism here.) Unless we can come up with a reason for why it isn't an POV fork I'll go ahead and start the deletion process. -Will Beback · † · 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As for your second point, it says:

As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

Ther never was a such a ection, and there's no agreemment among editors. -Will Beback · † · 00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "criticism of" article, but a broad sweep on perverted justice, predator hunter type organisations and any kind of protest that is claimed to be against "pedophiles". If you care to look at the article, you will notice that criticism of pedophile activists is only a subsection of a subsection. So please don't delete. --Jim Burton 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It still looks to me like a POV fork. We can let the AfD process decide. -Will Beback · † · 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what POV my article is abusing and how, before sending it for deletion? --Jim Burton 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Will B moved the article on to AfD. Look forward to seeing all of you over there! --Jim Burton 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article you created contains criticism of this activist movement that should be in this article. -Will Beback · † · 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the movement against pedophiles (incorporating advocacy against Ped Activists) not a rightful entity as of itself? From what I've seen out there, it clearly is, as is Pedophile Activism. I repeat - both deserve an article of their own, with about 20% criticism. For example, Gay Rights has a small criticism section that links to an article dedicated to criticism. This is common practice on WP. --Jim Burton 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this strikes me as a not very good faith attempt to keep criticism out of this article, SqueakBox 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism removal

Jim, please stop removing sourced criticism merely because you dont like itt, SqueakBox 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is pure comedy. For a starter, the criticism section on anti pedo activism was a whole article, originally written by me. Secondly, you have blanked and merged it FOUR (four) (FoUr) times without any discussion, let alone consensus! --Jim Burton 04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Only because yuo are abusing our system pushing POV and ignoring our policies in your pursuit of it. Fine. You win. Another great stride in the pursuit of freedomn to molest children. Lets see what happens next, SqueakBox 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack --Jim Burton 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are advocating sex with children. Why not just put up a pro-genocide page while you're at it? I am sure there are plenty of references to be had in the area.

3RR discussion

Thanks to the 3rr, you have now succeeded in your quest to include a farcical 'anti pedophile activism' section in the article. This will have to be discussed, before we can put it back. --Jim Burton 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to your revert I withdrew my 3rr complaint. I am acting in good faith and trying to improve this article and the encyclopedia. We musnt promote pro pedophile activism on wikipedia. Do you agree? SqueakBox 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not be promoting any POV. That's what I'm all about. I see it as an absolute farce that edits such as yours can gain technical protection, until consensus has been reached. The article has been ruined, albeit in good faith! --Jim Burton 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly ruined. Its looking a bit better but nowhere near good enough for my exacting standards. Please rerad {{WP:NPOV]]. We should be promoting all POV's not none. And fringe beliefs should get much smaller POV space than mainstream ones, SqueakBox 04:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the equally important standard that only relevant content goes in a page. You admitted it in your own writing there: with the possible exception of Perverted Justice, none of those groups are opposing the pedophile activist/"childlove" movement, just child sexual abuse and predation. Even then, only a minority of Perverted Justice's activities are applicable here. (Specifically I'm thinking of their internet lobbying against sites that they claim support pedophile viewpoints.) --tjstrf talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and Archival

I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the Talk page here to better fit the format of other pages. Headers have been moved to the top of the page, a standard Archive Box has been added. In addition, I've moved old Archive pages that were still named under Talk:Childlove movement to the current name, added a better navigation header to the Archive pages, and moved a large amount of old comments here to page 11 of the archives. If anything I moved off the page today is something you want to keep discussing, please create a new section on this page to discuss it, and link to the appropriate archive page for others to read. Please do not continue discussions on the Archive pages, as no one will see them. -- Kesh 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

External link order

Why is it important or significant that absolutezerounited.org be the number one external link for this article? I may be mistaken, but in any article, the first external link in a list of many carries an implicit recommendation: "if you are interested in more on this subject, this link is the most important to visit." I understand the need for criticism, but isn't there any link a bit calmer than a site that aims to "fight pedophiles around the world"? --Askild 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not recommending paedophile activism and there is a dispute as to exactly what the term signifies, ie IMO absolutezero are paedophile activ ists just anti rathert han pro, SqueakBox 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't given any reference for your claim that "paedophile activists" can mean "anti-paedophile activists." I have never seen that usage before. Furthermore, this article has *always* been about paedophile activists, and "paedophile activism" was just meant as a more neutral version of "childlove movement." -Jillium 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What hapened in the past should not dictate what hapens now. Check out the 6th paragraph [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50439 here], SqueakBox 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That says anti-pedophile activist, not paedophile activist. Is an "anti-racist activist" also a "racist activist?" (Not to make a comparison...) -Jillium 19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why we need to change the title, and I found this by searching the term anti-pedophile activist on google, SqueakBox 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but if you want to create a new article about an entirely different movement which often shares views with paedophile activists -- do. Movements against child sexual abuse ? -Jillium 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no standard for what link gets to be first on the list. Honestly, it doesn't matter. They're references, all of which should be evenly weighed with regards to the topic. Being first or last on the list has no significance. - Kesh 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

30% Opposition

Before the see also section, around 30% of the words in this aricle relate to criticisms of the movement. This is a number unlike any other article that documents a movement or ideology, and we should be ideally aiming for 20 - 15%, or even less, since criticism can be redirected to an article that documents the origin of many of those criticisms, i.e. Anti Pedophile Activism. --Jim Burton 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, didn't you say that Anti Pedophile Activism covers its own separate movement? I think the article you want is "Criticism of pedophile activism". And where did you derive these ideal percentages from? -Will Beback · † · 21: 05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a total distortion. As I have said before, this article should summarise the criticisms, as do most articles on movements. If the criticisms merit more coverage, a special article should be set up for them unless they can be featured on the article of another movement. Because a lot of this criticism originates from anti - pedophiles such as Mike Echols, a large amount can and should be stored on my new article. None of that negates the fact that anti - pedophile activism covers other points such as child molesters, 'survivivors' and entrapment - often spanning from the same minds. I find it rather naive, that you seem unable to understand that the same people and groups target activists and people who engage in actual illegal activity. --Jim Burton 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any criticism in this article from Mike Echols. What specifically are you referrig to? -Will Beback · † · 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Streaming the link list...

...helps us keep track of the links, so that we can balance them properly.

...makes picking a link and working through them faster and easier.

...helps readers who are unfamiliar with the websites avoid clicking on pro sites which may be NSFW or anti sites that may contain tracking scripts.

...helps avoid infantile edit wars over the ordering of sites within each section.

...has not been shown to be POV whatsoever. --Jim Burton 02:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, "offensive" is subjective and hence immaterial. That issue has already been debated and settled many times, e.g. at the goatse article. -Jillium 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

SqB is now also claiming that link streaming is POV. Inherently? Or is it just the way that I do it? I bet he invokes the 3rr by reverting it without talking. --Jim Burton 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger Reminder

Due to high traffic, the merger discussion got buried. Still, users such as SqueakBox seemed to be wanting a longer discussion, even though their demands were going nowhere (and rightly so IMO). *Pls don't add votes here* --Jim Burton 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant "Opponents"

"Opponents" such as a UN workgroup and Noncewatch are being added to the opponents list as minor edits. None of these organisations have stated their opposition to the activism movement, and some within the activism movement support the aims of workgroups etc.

What we have so far are PJ for their CSO / Rookiee campaign, NARTH for articles (I believe) and NA for a march against MARTIJN. Stichting Soelaas and Stop MARTIJN do not have their own pages. --Jim Burton 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a rule "see also" sections don't include red links since there's nothing to "see". The opponents don't need to have expressed an opinion about the "movement" - they simply oppose things that proponents advocate. -Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with that as a general principle --Jim Burton 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of saving space - accepTable?

Advocates
Lindsay Ashford	Frits Bernard	Edward Brongersma	Harry Hay	Gayle Rubin^[3]	Camile Paglia^[4]	Gerald Hannon
Pat Califia^[5]	Allen Ginsberg	Judith Levine^[6]	Tom O'Carroll	Robin Sharpe	David Thorstad	Ad van den Berg

--Jim Burton 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't. This is not any better looking or clearer and is harder to edit. If the lists are too long we can put them into columns. -Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ANU & other organisations for the movement

I am aware of the organisation ANU, its size and relevance, however it has no wiki article (notability), so cannot be linked from the advocates. I notice that their site has an as yet incomplete 'campaigns' page. When this has content on it, maybe we can link to them in the external links, but not for now, since the rest is a blog. --Jim♥Burton 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that the organisation should be linked to from the advocates section, but a Wikipedia article may not be notable enough. Tolerance01 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ANU calls itself "A blog about paedophilia, what paedophilia is and why many assumptions about paedophilia are incorrect". Only a handful of blogs are notable, and those have writers who use their real names. -Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know ANY paedophile blogs where authors use real names? Very few paedophiles are going to subject themselves to the inevitbale attacks of using a real name. Tolerance01 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So by that standard, ANU is notable because of Daniel Lièvre? Or are you talking about people who are publically recognisable, as well as publically named? --Jim♥Burton 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, from what I can see, it looks like the staff at that blog are going to endorse a few 'campaigns'. Since those will represent the organisation of seven or so members, we should be fine linking to such a page. --Jim♥Burton 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A blog is still a blog, even when seven anonymous people endorse a campaign. Unless this group is notable I don't see why we'd pay any attention to it. -Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven members doesnt make for notability, SqueakBox 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eight, actually... and when the campaign section is up, it will qualify as more than a blog (i.e., an activist organization). A website is not necessarily unnotable just because it includes a blog. -Jillium 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we can deal with that when the time comes. I agree merely containing a blog doesnt mean a site is a blog, SqueakBox 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Child pornography

Since prominent pedophile activists seek to make possesion of pornography legal:

The [(NVD)] party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. [5]

It follows that those who oppose child pornography oppose what pedophile activists advocate. Therefore, the Special UN Rapporteur on Child Pornography should be included on the "opponents" section, along with other active opponents to child pornography. -Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a chasm between nearly all pedophile activists (who argue that ethically produced or not, censorship is futile) and such groups, who sometimes go as far as saying that every time an image is viewed, the child involved is molested(?). I wouldn't overload on such orgs, since many PAs oppose the production of CP. --Jim♥Burton 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the age of consent were lowered, wouldn't that also involve a re-definition of child pornography? I'd think that a lowering of the AoC to, for example, 12 years, it would result in pornography depicting 12 year olds. So even if [the advocates] say they oppose CP, their definition may be different from the general definition now in use. Anyway, I think that anti-CP folks would be more representative than far right groups like the BNP. -Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The BNP believe in the death penalty for "paedophiles" (I'm not sure whether they actually mean sex offenders) From their website - "The restoration of the death penalty will not be a breach of anyone's "human rights". Nor, in the case of paedophiles can it ever be described as "inhumane"." They're an anti-paedophile group; the fact that they're "far right" is irrelevant. Tolerance01 10:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that almost every organisation that has spoken on such issues is anti-pedophile, the current level of F R groups is a bit of a joke though isn't it? Talk about guilt by association! --Jim♥Burton 10:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the AoC were lowered, the UNCRC would still set the CP age at 18 by mandate (globally bar US and Somalia). That's why 17 is 'child porn' but 16 is ripe for love in most countries --Jim♥Burton 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to judge how realistic the goals of pedophiles activists are. I suppose they may wish to repeal the UNCRC as well as local laws. -Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Three lines of history is not irrelevant

And nor is it inherently POV. To the extent that it is mentioned in this article, history is an adequate part of the subject as a whole. The history article exists because of the notability of the subject and the quantity of material that can be produced, and even if it were a 'teaser', extracting three lines from it would not be POV, since the article is encyclopedic information, and not propaganda. Jim♥Burton 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a short history section we don't need to have the same history info in the intro just before it. -Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "The Internet now plays a large role in the contemporary pedophile activism." as not being history. I changed "the movement made temporary progress towards its goals" to the pro-movement existed in continent. We have no evidence the paedophile activists moved closer to their goals of lowering AoC etc, they may have become more solid and strong as an activist group but that is something completely different, their goal wasnt/isnt to exist it was/is to change laws and social/cultural attitudes and in this they made no progress, SqueakBox 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is fine, but maybe you should note how the AoC was almost abolished in the netherlands. They opted for 12 instead. --Jim♥Burton 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a neutral source for that assertion? -Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here (note it doesn't actually specify whether abolition was the aim) Jim♥Burton 07:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that the right link? Or maybe I missed something. All I could find there was that a petition signed by some eminent people had been presented. I don't see anything about "how the AoC was almost abolished". -Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are sources, here is one which gives support for the statement: Schuijer, J. (1991) Tolerance at Arm's Length: The Dutch Experience. V.☢.B 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So am I right that the linked source doesn't support the assertion? Can you please give us the quote from Tolerance at Arm's Length which does support the assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[...]This petition drew unexpectedly large support from about sixty organisations, [...] I aint gonna type the whole thing out, read page 218 if you want it all. V.☢.B 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However "unexpectedly large support" for a petition does not justify saying that "AoC was almost abolished in the netherlands", as Jim Burton has asserted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what "almost" mean in this case. You can read abit about it here: http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/chapter3.htm Preferably we avoid valuestatements like "almost" and explain things exactly as they happened. V.☢.B 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So we should leave it as it is, SqueakBox 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[indent] My intention was never to change anything. Obviously the key factor was unanimous support by the Labor party execs. Jim♥Burton 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Irrelevant Link

The link to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12907384 is not relevant to this article. The two sentences where the link was previously used in the article hold no information directly related to the linked site. At best, the relevance is based on original research.

Please weigh in on whether or not this link needs to be removed from this page. Homologeo 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section that referenced the link described above. I also removed the following link: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1154593941281930.xml&coll=2 , thinking that it referenced the same site. That was a mistake on my part, for I don't yet fully understand how the footnote links work on Wikipedia. However, I decided not to revert my edit, because the link doesn't seem to lead anywhere useful for this article. No reference materials is found on this particular webpage.

Once again, if any other editor wants to weigh in on the removal of either of the links, please feel free to speak up. Homologeo 07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Childline

Is a charity that lobbies the government and is entirely appropriate as a link here, 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone had added Esther Rantzen, founder of ChildLine, to the list of opponents. If anything, I'd say that Childline belongs more than Rantzen. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added Rantzen for her views on child abuse. Childline may be involved in lobbying, but for what? Legal reform? Anti pedophile measures? Jim♥Burton 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles desire to love children. Children who don't want to be loved that way are empowered by groups like ChildLine to stop the physical expression. By doing so the groups are also increasing the enforcement of child sex laws, laws which pedophile activists seek to weaken or remove. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that pedophile activists support the coercion of children into activities that they personally object to. That childline promotes the enforcement of certain laws that some pedophile activists oppose, is a very weak link, since the focus of childine is unwanted physical and sexual contact, and the laws that stop that are incidental. Activists may very well support laws that childline would work equally efficiently under. Jim♥Burton 08:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You may not believe it but others do, SqueakBox 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If pedophile activists oppose adults leading children into non-consensual sexual situations then perhaps they agree with ChildLine and Rantzen, in which case perhaps those entries belong in the "Advocates" section. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, SqueakBox 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, because childline advocate nothing in that direction, on top of what the rest of society does. In the other direction, you might find some literature stating that sexual fondling between a 30 year old and a 10 year old is innately harmful, but ultimately, they remain a general crime fighting charity, and really have nothing to do with being an opponent to pedophile activism, or even the views stated by activists. Jim♥Burton 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok..let me see..These scum havent made a damn point worthy of ANYBODYS time! No, never, nana, nowo...Any sex with a underage person will be phyically painful/harmful! No no no! Consent is GREAT! By the end of 2007 the U.S. Supream Court will pass a new law makeing the AOC 18 for all of the USA! Should I right an artical bout that or thats got to go on a talk page?--Otaku125956573 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This group clearly should be in the article, SqueakBox 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Name change

The consensus is to keep anti pedophile activism hence this needs to be the pro pedophile activism article as the pro pedophile activist movement is clearly less notable than the anti pedophile movement and wikipedia must and will reflect this, SqueakBox 05:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more editors voice their opinion on this name change. There doesn't seem to be enough reason provided to change the name of this article. After all, the movement is called "Pedophile activism," and not "Pro pedophile activism." Even if there is a movement with an opposing viewpoint, the name of the main movement remains the same. Besides, the existence of "Anti pedophile activism" depends on the prior existence of "Pedophile activism." I will not revert the name change just yet, but I urge other editors to make known what they think of this issue.

Does anyone else agree with SqueakBox? If more people are against this change, it would be best to revert it. However, even if we're to keep the article entitled as SqueakBox suggests, shouldn't at least "Pedophile activism" redirect to this page? Homologeo 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]

I don't see why the paedophile activism page needs to be retitled pro-paedophile activism, the name paedophile activism is activism by or on behalf of paedophiles (a bit like gay activism), and anti-paedophile activism is activism against paedophiles (you would call someone opposed to gay people a 'gay activist'!). Surely the names should just remain paedophile activism and anti-paedophile activism, with no merger because they are different things. --Coroebus 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pedophile activism" was a problematic title in part because it implied that it included only activism by pedophiles. "Pro pedophile activism" makes the scope of the article clear. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the Car Lobby aren't cars, so I still think I oppose. --Coroebus 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well hang on! Can you souyrce that the pro pedophile guys are more notable than the anti pedophile bunch? Cos we are not a democracy and we must follow policies which demand POV and do not support the pro pedophilia agenda, so I dont consider this a suggestion as if NPOV were negotiable with pro pedophile activists You guys started the anti article and refused to see it deleted so take the consequenes. Pedophile activism does lead to this article, I havent touched the redirect. If pro pedophiles refuse to accept NPOV there will be consequences, this is just the beginning of the NPOV backlash policy driven , SqueakBox 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with SqueakBox. We had a lengthy discusion cross several pages involving many editor and the point was repeatedly made that the topic of this article is activism in favor of pedophilia. The title "pedophile activism" is generic. There is no movement which uses the term as its title. Lastly, it complements "Anti pedophile activism". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Screams POV FORK! to me, but if it stops the constant addition of irrelevant information about groups opposed to child rape to this page, then so be it. --tjstrf talk 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well put tjstrf! It would be great if both so-called "movements" were moved to a single page dealing with the phenomenon of "pedophile activism." However, the irrelevant addition of information relating to opposition of child rape and the like (counting that child rape is NOT synonymous with any of the goals or supported activities of pedophile activism) is pretty annoying. I guess, for right now, the articles will have to remain as they are. Still, we should try to merge them in the future to assure a neutral point of view. Homologeo 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How is child rape (as currently defined) not a goal of pro pedophile activism? SqueakBox 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as expected, it all whittles down to definitions. According to the views advanced by most pro pedophile activists (to use the terminology that is currently accepted on Wikipedia), child rape is quite different from consensual sex between an adult and a child. Consent makes all the difference. Homologeo 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem, the false allegeing that children consent to have sex with adults, and our response when adults do that is to lock them down, SqueakBox 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a merger would be preferable. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, you said That is the problem, the false allegeing that children consent to have sex with adults... I hope I'm misreading you. Are you saying that no child could possibly consent to having sex with an adult? With 6+ billion people and 5,000+ years of civilization, I'm sure it's happened at least once. Dfpc 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps not, certainly according to our modern western standards, SqueakBox 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I put 3 colons in front of your msg, if I am mistaken please take them out. Even by modern Western standards, I'd bet that somewhere in the United States, at least one child under 13 has consented to sex with an adult in the last 10 years. I'd go so far as to say that in any given month there are probably a few dozen to a few hundred kids in America in truly consenting sexual relationships. Why? It's simply the fact that there are tens of millions of children in America and a certain number of them will be interested in sex well before their peers. Unfortunately for those kids and moreso for the real victims of child sexual abuse, that number is dwarfed by the thousands or tens of thousands of kids under 13 who are either forced, manipulated, or otherwise involved in a less than fully consensual sexual relationship with an adult in any given month. If you extend childhood to 17, as the legal system does in some US states but confine yourself to relationships that are at least 5 years apart, both the consensual and non-consensual numbers go way up. Dfpc 04:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the use of 'pro', because the title is out of line with what is described in the article. It further implies that activism to change the age of consent is 'in favour of pedophiles', when this is not always the case. I would prefer the article to be moved to a page such as Intergenerational love movement or Childlove movement, as both encompass philia and sexual behaviour.

I also oppose the merge, because we are dealing with tow movements here. To have both within one article would be unusual to say the least. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support a merge but if there is no consensus then the names should remian as they are. This article clearly does deal with pro pedophiles and their activism and IMO the anti article would be more suitably entitled pedophile activism than this one (as being the much more notable movement), SqueakBox 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If the name is kept, it should be at least moved to "Pro-pedophile activism", with a hyphen like pro-choice. --Askild 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both this and the "Anti" article should have hyphens. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix that later (its all the redirects too), SqueakBox 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your adjustment of all the titles and redirects to include the hyphen will be greatly appreciated by all. While I may not agree with the way the two main articles are currently entitled, it seems best to leave them for the moment with the titles they currently have. However, I agree that starting the titles with "pro-" and "anti-" would be the most reasonable approach for now. Homologeo 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

it'll be tomorrow now. I need to go to bed, SqueakBox 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to move the anti article to anti-pedophile activism, can an admin (Will?) do it, SqueakBox 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change for incoming redirects Boylover and Childlover away from Pro-pedophile activism to Pedophilia

Please comment at Talk:Pedophilia#Redirects from Alternative Terms for Pedophile. By the way, Pedophile redirects to Pedophilia. Dfpc 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I posted on the pedophilia talk page: I think the terms used by child love movement should not be directed at pedophilia. I've always advocated that (the pedophilia article) be primarily about the medical concept. Where exactly the child love terms should be directed can be discussed somewhere else. --Gbleem 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place, please. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag unsourced material with {fact} before deleting it

I just reverted a deletion less than a day old. Someone deleted material only because it was unsourced. It wasn't flagged ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} which is probably why it stayed unsourced so long. Don't summarily delete unsourced material just because it's unsourced. If that's the only reason you are deleting it, mark it with the {{flag}} template and wait a few weeks. Better yet, improve the article by finding a source and adding it. Dfpc 00:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It was flagged for nearly a year, and then just recently someone added a crappy source. Thanks for finding better ones. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. " --P4k 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious?

Will, I urge you to actually discuss the removal of a source that appears to be the flagship of a website that gets millions of hits each year (more than some major corporations, according to them). Why is this sorce (to show that a stigma is avoided) dubious?

http://www.boylover.net/info/aboutbl/

"The English language term 'boylove' was coined in the last few decades, because in some western societies the technical terminology for this form of orientation or attraction has become vilified in the public mind".

? βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know about their traffic? Are you one of the webmasters? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unitil we have evideence of your claim, Bow, it should not be here. Even were it as notable as you claim (and a million hits a year is 3000 a day which doesnt make for a notable site, IMO) edits like this may indicate the community doesnt want us to link to sites like this that the greta majority of our readers do not wish to access and would be mortified to do so, SqueakBox 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, popularity doesn't equate to reliability. WP:ATT is the best guide. The main crieria is the fact-checking process. This website appears to be a one-person operation. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

SqueakBox removed my citation of http://boylinks.net/personalsites_blogs.html BoyLinks] list of blogs run by homosexual pedophiles from Some pedophile activists now have blogs. He says the BoyChat sites are unreliable. I think this particular page is an exception. Normally, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. A reliable source is a source that has good fact-checking. A mere list of web sites is easily fact-checked - just click on all the links. Therefore, such lists should be allowed even if the underlying web site is considered unreliable. The alternative is to use several primary sources. It's my understanding that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. Would the editors of this article prefer to have several primary sources instead of a secondary source from Boylinks.net? Dfpc 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am dubious about us linking to any BoyChat sites not merely because of RS but because some of these sites are attack sites and any link to a site which attacks wikipedians should be removed according to current, albeit controversial, policy. There is also the issue of whether we want to link to this kind of site because our readers get angry if they inadvertently go to one of these pages, and we should absolutely not link to any of these sites without a clear content warning at the very least, SqueakBox 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another reason not to include that link - it simply isn't reliable, nor does it say what we are making it say. The page itself does not assert that the linked blogs belong to pedophile activists. It simply asserts that it's a list of "boy-related and boylove websites". Second, not all of the linked sites are to activists or even pedophiles. One blog I checked includes a posting where the author complains about being slandered as a pedophile. How do we know these bloggers are pedophiles, much less pedophile activists? A couple of others I checked just had pictures of boys with captions about how sexy they are. That's not activism. Quite a few sites weren't online, making me think that the list isn't well-maintained. All in all it does not appear to support the assertion. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)